Economists study cycles, but they also create some. Every other month, a British heterodox economist explains why economics is broken, and other British economists respond that the critic doesn’t understand what economists really do (there’s even a dedicated hashtag). The anti and pro arguments have more or less been the same for the past 10 years. This week, the accuser is Howard Reed and the defender, Diane Coyle. It would be business as usual without interesting comments by Econocracy coauthor Cahal Moran at Opendemocracy and by Jo Michell on twitter along the same lines. What matters, they argue, is not what economists do but how they do it. The problem is not whether some economists deal with money, financial instability, inequality or gender, but how their dominant modeling strategies allow them to take them into account or rather, they argue, constrain them to leave these crucial issues out…
View original post 1,019 more words
I recently finished reading a great new book published by the Mises Institute, entitled The Progressive Era. This new work is mostly formed of previously unpublished material – 9 previously unpublished chapters and 6 previously published essays, which have been edited together into a cohesive whole – written by the great ‘Austrian’ economist, historian, and libertarian theorist Murray N. Rothbard. As the title would tend to suggest, the book covers the ‘Progressive’ period of American history (generally dated from the 1890s to the 1920s), during which the relatively laissez-faire politics and economics of 19th century America gave way to the modern corporatist and interventionist state as we know it today.
Rothbard began writing the book in the 1970s during his association with the Cato Institute, but due to a number of reasons – ranging from his other projects to the characteristic way in which his great enthusiasm for the subject matter propelled…
View original post 846 more words
Director: Michael Curtiz
Continuing my journey through the Top 100 Greatest American Movies of All Time (1912-1996) I watched the number 2 spot which I heard a lot about and its quality, Casablanca by Michael Curtiz. I’ve finally watched it and must say it is a lot of things I didn’t anticipate being. I knew it belonged to the romantic genre which gets any guy calling for a death wish when watching alone however, to my surprise I survived, and liked it a lot. It takes place in, like the title says, Casablanca, Morocco during WWII, a time when it was under France which itself is under the Nazi Germany occupation. It’s a refugee bus stop, a final spot for many to get to America, the safe haven. In all this we got a bar owned by the American main hero, Rick who “happens” to intervene a lot by helping…
View original post 254 more words
Penni Ha’penny You have probably cherry-picked figures out of context. At any one time possibly 10% of beneficiaries ARE working full-time – on temporary jobs for a week or a month – and it has to be declared and no benefit received for those weeks. Temporary work is all some people can get. About a third aren’t looking for work? If true, this could well be the number of people who hav , in a governmental sleight of hand, been shifted from Sickness and Invalid Benefits onto Jobseeker with Medical Exemption – the dole, but with no requirement to look for work. Because you can’t work. Ridiculous system.